SSA proposed NICS rule

[gc70]

Still, what authority gives ssa to be the adjudicating authority? Also, when are these affected folks given their day in court before losing their rights?

Did you know that 58.5% of disability benefits are awarded by administrative law judges?

 

[jr45]

That is the first I heard of that...even if true, Then what about 41.5% that were not? That still is a few houndred thousand, give or take.

 

[yugorpk]

You are right. If they get they day in court and are ruled not mentally ill the SSA checks should stop immediately.

 

[danez71]

Its painfully obvious most of the posts made here are made out of ignorance from NOT reading what has been linked.


My post #2 addresses about 1/2 of whats been falsely claimed.


On page 12

First, there must be a determination by a “lawful authority.”

Second, the adjudication must concern (as relevant to our programs) an individual’s inability to manage his or her own affairs.

Third, the adjudication regarding the inability to manage an individual’s affairs must be based on “marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency,
condition or disease.”

Page 13

Consequently, the basis for the individual’s inability to manage his or her own affairs must therefore be the “result of” his or her mental impairment.

As I quoted in post# 2, this is narrowly tailored to mental issues and not being able to take care of your own affairs.

Arthritis, etc etc are NOT included.

Either cite the text or quit making false statements out of ignorance.



Where is the due process? That's addressed on pg 13 as well.

Accordingly, we propose that, during the title II or title XVI claim development and adjudication process, <snip>

They don't just assign a person to manage your funds all willy nilly and then say your not mentally competent enough to have guns and take them away.


See pages 20 & 21

We base our determination of whether to pay a beneficiary directly or through a representative payee on evidence provided to us. <snip>

First, we consider legal evidence; legal evidence is required only where there is an allegation that the beneficiary is legally incompetent. <snip>

Second, we consider medical evidence; whenever possible, we will obtain medical evidence that indicates the beneficiary cannot manage or direct someone else to manage his or her benefits.

Third, we consider lay evidence; in the absence of legal evidence, we will obtain lay evidence in all cases. If legal evidence establishes that the beneficiary is incompetent to manage or direct someone else to manage his or her benefits, the beneficiary must receive benefits through a representative payee, and no other development is necessary. Otherwise, we will make a capability determination based on lay and medical evidence.

And on page 22

We recognize that this means we would provide some beneficiaries with the oral and written notice required by the NIAA, but ultimately not report them to the NICS because we determine that they do not require representative payees.

Starting on page 22 (but mostly on page 23), under Program for Relief

Section 101(a)(2)(A) of the NIAA requires a Federal agency that makes any adjudication related to the mental health of a person to establish a program that permits a person to apply for relief from the firearms prohibitions imposed by 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). We propose to allow a person who is subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor because he or she meets the criteria in § 421.110(b) to apply for relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions imposed as a result of our adjudication.

So 1st you have to try to get it.... then if you feel they mislabel you or that the firearms prohibition should not apply to you, they built in a system for you to get your firearms rights back.


Then on page 24

After the applicant submits the evidence required under the rules, a decision maker who was not involved in finding that the applicant’s benefit payments must be made through a representative payee would review the evidence and act on the request for relief.

And if you get denied..... still on page 24

Section 101(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the NIAA specifies43 that relief and judicial review with respect to the relief program shall be available according to the standards prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 925(c). Section 925(c), in turn, provides that any person whose application for relief is denied may file a petition for a judicial review of the denial with the United States district court for the district in which he or she resides.

I'm not sure, but I highly doubt that's going to be some ALJ at the district court level.


We can argue how it wont be fair or efficient or what ever...actually, we cant because the legal section isn't for what laws 'should be' etc.


But again, its painfully obvious that the loudest critics haven't read it and continue to make false statements about it.


And again, I'm not advocating for it. It more Govt prying into lives. IMO, What should be happening (dang, breaking the rule) is that family members should be getting guns out of their hands just as they do when grampa cant drive safely anymore and they take his keys away.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The subject is the proposed SSA regulations regarding reporting of certain situations to NICS. Focus on that and on the actual text of the proposed regulations. Random anecdotes and personal experiences really aren't relevant.

One possible issue is that an applicant for benefits must file for benefits and substantiate his claim with evidence that he qualifies for those benefits by meeting the applicable criteria. The SSA is responsible for evaluating the claim and making a determination as to whether the applicant for benefits does satisfy those criteria.

However, if the applicant's claim for benefits is based on a disability characterized by a certain level of mental impairment, a determination by the SSA that the applicant is entitled to benefits also of necessity is a finding that the applicant's condition causes the applicant to be disqualified under federal law from possession of a gun or ammunition.

That could make for an interesting discussion. But for any such discussion to be worthwhile and on-topic for the Legal Forum, it must be based on what the law actually is -- including appropriate citation to legal authority.

If the discussion doesn't stay focused, the thread will be closed.

 

[gc70]

That is the first I heard of that...even if true, Then what about 41.5% that were not? That still is a few houndred thousand, give or take.

The statistic on the rate of ALJ awards is just to give of sense of the due process in the system.

More specifically, 100% of disability claims are filed by individuals; the government does not chase anyone down and force them to take disability benefits. The process for a disability claim can go through many steps: initial consideration; reconsideration; a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge; a hearing by an Appeals Council, and; review in Federal District Court.

Only after a person qualifies to receive benefits does the question of their capacity to manage their affairs possibly arise. If the question does arise, there is another, separate process for making and appealing that determination.

 

[yugorpk]

Sounds like due process to me.

 

[jr45]

More specifically, 100% of disability claims are filed by individuals; the government does not chase anyone down and force them to take disability benefits. The process for a disability claim can go through many steps: initial consideration; reconsideration; a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge; a hearing by an Appeals Council, and; review in Federal District Court.

That is incorrect, not all claims are filed by the individuals receiveing benefits. Of all the claims submitted, how many actually go through the alj? Based on the shear number of claims, not many. Also, for the few who did go through the alj, how many where legally adjudicated? Once again, the purpose of this rule is to take the rights always from thousands of Americans without due process while fooling the rest into believing this is for safety and legal. Once your rights are taken away, good luck trying to get it back. The rule explains the archaic process and its a difficult read. They know this that is why this rule is being pushed.

Also, I don't see where the SSA has the authority to adjudicate anyone. Determine if someone is eligible for benefits, yes, but to adjudicate someone as prohibited?

 

[yugorpk]

Also, I don't see where the SSA has the authority to adjudicate anyone. Determine if someone is eligible for benefits, yes, but to adjudicate someone as prohibited?

If the proposal passes the SSA would have the authority to pass on a list of people who it pays disability because of their mental illness to the NICS system . Prohibitions on those with mental illness of owning firearms are already on the books. The SSA would not put anyone on that list unless they

a. Petitioned the government to be put on that list by voluntary and repeated effort to be listed as mentally disabled.

b. Were involuntarily committed . That is a small portion of those listed as disabled and constitute the worst of the mentally disabled. Its a quite the judicial hat trick to get into that elite group.

The SSA does not propose to put people on the list the send to NICS unless all of the rigorous conditions listed are met. They are not putting people on that list who have bad knees and backs. They are putting the worst of the mentally ill on that list . People who are so disabled that they must receive government benefits for mental illness so bad that they cannot even manage their own living conditions. As noted the government does not chase people down to put them on a mental disability list. People who receive those benefits receive SSA on their own accord.

 

[jr45]

Only putting the worst of the mentally Ill on the list...lol, that is exactly what they want you to believe. 1. have a mental health rating. 2. Have a representative payee 3. Be over 18yrs old but below retirement age. This sure sounds like the "worst" of the mentally ill. No matter what is shown, some will fall to the trick that this act, as with what va did to our vets, etc. As benign or good.

 

[danez71]

That is incorrect, not all claims are filed by the individuals receiveing benefits. Of all the claims submitted, how many actually go through the alj? Based on the shear number of claims, not many. Also, for the few who did go through the alj, how many where legally adjudicated? Once again, the purpose of this rule is to take the rights always from thousands of Americans without due process while fooling the rest into believing this is for safety and legal. Once your rights are taken away, good luck trying to get it back. The rule explains the archaic process and its a difficult read. They know this that is why this rule is being pushed.

Also, I don't see where the SSA has the authority to adjudicate anyone. Determine if someone is eligible for benefits, yes, but to adjudicate someone as prohibited?

Again, it's painfully obvious that you have not only not read it, you have not read what I've posted twice and bolded for you.

The due process is there. I've quoted it and I've bolded it.


The Feds are giving the authority under this act.

I may have cited that too but if I didnt, it clearly states it in the text.

Please take a little time to read it and educate yourself so that you don't keep making these ignorant false statements.

Or maybe that's your goal?

 

[jr45]

Danez, please explain how title ii or xvi of the claims determination equals due process for the loss of rights.

 

[danez71]

Danez, please explain how title ii or xvi of the claims determination equals due process for the loss of rights.

The process is in the text linked.

I have cited an abundance from the link.

You have cited nothing, nor provided anything that counters the proposal in the link.


If youre not capable of reading and understanding whats in the link, or refuse to read it, then you have no rational basis to refute anything in the link.

You need to support your statements as I have already done for mine

 

[jr45]

Lol Danez, I'm the one who put the links on this thread. You claim due process is addressed by your bold text, then Please, explain how title ii and xvi address the due process requirement.

If you read the links, you would have seen that the NRA-ILA also sees the lack of due process.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160429/social-security-administration-releases-proposed-rulemaking-on-disability-related-gun-ban

 

[danez71]

Just because you put the links there doesn't mean you read it or understand it.

What the NRA thinks isn't what being discussed.


Support your own statements as I have done already.

If you can't support your statements of refute, then your statements are without merit.

ETA: Read post 30 again.

 

[gc70]

Of all the claims submitted, how many actually go through the alj? Based on the shear number of claims, not many. Also, for the few who did go through the alj, how many where legally adjudicated?

In 2014 there were 2,521,459 disability applications and benefits awarded to 810,973.
In 2014 there were 679,825 ALJ hearing dispositions and 162,280 Appeals Council case dispositions.
Whenever an ALJ renders a decision, the case has been legally adjudicated - that's what judges do.

Only putting the worst of the mentally Ill on the list...lol, that is exactly what they want you to believe. 1. have a mental health rating. 2. Have a representative payee 3. Be over 18yrs old but below retirement age.

At year-end 2014 there were 10,261,268 disability beneficiaries, of which 1,735,410 or 17% had representative payees.
Of that total, 3,586,006 had mental disorder disabilities, of which 1,340,250 or 37% had representative payees (which represented 77% of total representative payees).

Which mental disorder disability recipients have representative payees? 79% of those with autistic disorders, 73% of those with intellectual disability (formerly called retardation), 50% of those with developmental and childhood or adolescent disorders, 44% of those with schizophrenic and other psychotic disorders, and 41% of those with organic mental disorders. Only 16-17% of those with run-of-the-mill mood or other mental disorders have representative payees.

The 1,340,250 mental disorder disability recipients with representative payees at year-end 2014 who could potentially be deemed a prohibited person by the proposed rule all have recourse to the relief provisions in § 421.150 of the proposed rule.

If your dislike the proposed rule, submit comments about the proposal.

 

[danez71]

gc70, excellent citations.

 

[jr45]

Below are the links of mental health diseases (w/criteria) SSA uses and the other is the statistical history of who receives disability. As listed in the the OP, comment period is open.
https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/12.00-MentalDisorders-Adult.htm
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/

 

[BSA1]

yugorpk says...

If you sign up for SSA mental disability checks dont expect that you are going to be able to own a firearm. There is a difference between getting SSA checks for having a bad back and for being ruled mentally ill. I DONT WANT THE MENTALLY ILL TO OWN FIREARMS EVEN IF THEY ARE MENTALLY ILL IN THE VA SYSTEM .

O’boy. Another classic example of the lack of understanding by most folks of mental illness.

As a longtime advocate of the right of mentally ill to own firearms I will only make two points about yugorprk's comment;

Before doing so it is important to define what mental illness is. A mental illness is a disease that causes mild to severe disturbances in thought and/or behavior, resulting in an inability to cope with life’s ordinary demands and routines.

1st there are more than 200 classified forms of mental illness. Some of the more common disorders are depression, bipolar disorder, dementia, schizophrenia and anxiety disorders. Symptoms may include changes in mood, personality, personal habits and/or social withdrawal.

2. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older or about one in four adults suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.

Treatment of mental illness is far from being a exact science. It is not like having a disease such as cancer where the Doctor can see the tumor. Different psychiatrists can view the symptoms much differently than the other.

Most importantly think about this for a moment. The final diagnoses of a person’s mental symptoms is going to be made by a Doctor who is being paid by the Government to enforce the agenda of the Government Officials in power.

So yugorpk you support stripping almost 58,000,000 adult Americans of the right to own firearms.

This is a hot button issue for me so I will shut up...for now.

 

[alsaqr]

Its painfully obvious most of the posts made here are made out of ignorance from NOT reading what has been linked.

That is always the case when discussing mental illness and gun rights. Rather than becoming informed on the subject, people simply parrot misinformation and/or let their imaginations run wild.

The NICS Improvements Act of 2007 (2008) had very broad bi-partisan support in the US congress. The Act was in response to the massacre of students at VA Tech by an adjudicated mental case who was never reported to NICS. There have been several of these cases: One invoved a young man who was drawing Supplemental Security Income for an adjudicated disabling mental condition. He went out, bought a gun from a dealer and murdered several folks.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49

 

[gc70]

So yugorpk you support stripping almost 58,000,000 adult Americans of the right to own firearms.

You make the valid point that not everyone with some degree of mental illness poses a danger to themselves or others that would warrant denying the right to own firearms.

The proposed rules under discussion do not encompass the 57.7 million adult Americans with some form and degree of mental illness.

The outer boundary of the proposal addresses less than 1.4 million people with mental disorders. Those people are working-age adults who have convinced the government that their disorders are severe enough that they not only cannot work to support themselves, but are incapable of even managing the benefits they receive from the government to sustain themselves.

Which factors in the proposed rules are unreasonable? And how would you change the proposal to be reasonable?

 

[yugorpk]

So yugorpk you support stripping almost 58,000,000 adult Americans of the right to own firearms.

Absolutely. Yes. If you do not have full command of your faculties to the point where you need to receive SSI and have someone else administer your finances and you have been given your due process then yes, you should not be in the position of owning firearms. I do not want you driving either.

 

[BSA1]

You make the valid point that not everyone with some degree of mental illness poses a danger to themselves or others that would warrant denying the right to own firearms.

How about the vast majority do not?

The proposed rules under discussion do not encompass the 57.7 million adult Americans with some form and degree of mental illness.

The nose of the camel under the tent.

Once we agree that folks with arbitrary mental illness as determined by a agency of the Government should be stripped of their 2A rights then we are only discussing how many Americans we want to disarm at a time and when to add more mental illnesses to the list to disarm more of them.

Yugoprk supports banning everyone with a mental illness from owning a gun. Do we really expect the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to be any better informed?

The outer boundary of the proposal addresses less than 1.4 million people with mental disorders. Those people are working-age adults who have convinced the government that their disorders are severe enough that they not only cannot work to support themselves, but are incapable of even managing the benefits they receive from the government to sustain themselves.

How about if they have in the past worked or have been working and paying into the Social Security System why shouldn’t they be eligible for S.S. Disability without forfeiting their rights?

Heck our Government pays citizens billions of dollars not to work.

This is nothing more than fear mongering and a campaign of misinformation by the Federal Government added by a willing media that supports a anti-gun agenda.

What to know the most successful campaign of lies and misinformation by the Federal Government?

Marijuana.

It started in the 1930's and still continues today by generations of Americans that were fed this information without any facts and data to the contrary being presented. Thanks to the Internet, facebook and information superhighway true facts about marijuana is becoming known and folks are able to make informed choices.

 

[jr45]

There is a bill being proposed to protect the rights of SSA recepients.
http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/2/senate-bill-would-protect-second-amendment-rights-of-social-security-beneficiaries

Absolutely. Yes. If you do not have full command of your faculties to the point where you need to receive SSI and have someone else administer your finances and you have been given your due process then yes, you should not be in the position of owning firearms. I do not want you driving either.

And the stigma that is projected about mental health in our society continues.

 

[yugorpk]

Yugoprk supports banning everyone with a mental illness from owning a gun. Do we really expect the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to be any better informed?

Is that what I said? I said I support a ban on firearms ownership for people who have mental illnesses so severe that they are disabled by them. They are disabled by their mental illness. They do not have full command of their faculties. They should not be operating heavy machinery. They should not be driving. They should not own firearms. I don't want them flying airplanes either.